Slitherine

Asking as someone who knows little about the history of the Crusades and so on, will the Dailami list be in the Swords and Scimitars book? If not, will it be listed as a valid army in competitions themed as such (in the same was as, say, Thracians are OK in the Rise of Rome despite being in (presumably) Immortal Fire?) Just trying to get armies together for the BHGS doubles series for this year ....

speedy wrote:Asking as someone who knows little about the history of the Crusades and so on, will the Dailami list be in the Swords and Scimitars book?

No, it is in the Byzantium/Islam book (Decline and Fall) due in October.

If not, will it be listed as a valid army in competitions themed as such?

No, because the main dynasty covered (the Buwhaiyids) was defunct before the start of the Crusades period.

Cheers Richard, looks like the paintbrush is going to have to come out again then ....

speedy wrote:Cheers Richard, looks like the paintbrush is going to have to come out again then ....

*I can second that. Have started collecting 25mm Dailami.

*Have you seen the rather excellent Musketeer Miniatures?
Bill is very near to completion of the senior ghulams and ghulam command.
I understand that FoG does not address mounted infantry which is rather a shame as hordes of Dailamites on camels and mules bouncing towards the enemy could be rather fun - makes collecting the army cheaper however.

*Yours disgracefully

*Pelagius

PELAGIUS wrote:I understand that FoG does not address mounted infantry which is rather a shame as hordes of Dailamites on camels and mules bouncing towards the enemy could be rather fun - makes collecting the army cheaper however.

It is not a question of not addressing them. Our reading of the history is that mounts for infantry were of strategic value, to get the troops to the battlefield faster, but not used to move such troops about on the battlefield after initial deployment. Sometimes troops remounted to pursue beaten enemy. In the first case, this is before the battle, in the second it is after the enemy is beaten, so there is no reason for such troops to be modelled in the rules, which only cover the actual battle up until the point that one side concedes the field.

rbodleyscott wrote:

PELAGIUS wrote:I understand that FoG does not address mounted infantry which is rather a shame as hordes of Dailamites on camels and mules bouncing towards the enemy could be rather fun - makes collecting the army cheaper however.

It is not a question of not addressing them. Our reading of the history is that mounts for infantry were of strategic value, to get the troops to the battlefield faster, but not used to move such troops about on the battlefield after initial deployment. Sometimes troops remounted to pursue beaten enemy. In the first case, this is before the battle, in the second it is after the enemy is beaten, so there is no reason for such troops to be modelled in the rules, which only cover the actual battle up until the point that one side concedes the field.

I think the decision to not model dismounting is accurate. I think too many rules have dismounting function like the 7th cavalry fighting the indians in the amercian west. A those were the movies and B examples of that are skirmisher tactics not a battle. Same issue with Napoleonic Dragoons. They really never dismounted on a battlefield to fight.

So I think was another good call in fav of history.

[quote="hazelbark
I think the decision to not model dismounting is accurate. I think too many rules have dismounting function like the 7th cavalry fighting the indians in the amercian west. A those were the movies and B examples of that are skirmisher tactics not a battle. Same issue with Napoleonic Dragoons. They really never dismounted on a battlefield to fight.

So I think was another good call in fav of history.[/quote]

*In history Mongols/Timurids, ghulams and Umayyad/Abbasid cavalry all dismounted in battle.

*Yours disgracefully

*Pelagius

[quote="rbodleyscott

It is not a question of not addressing them. Our reading of the history is that mounts for infantry were of strategic value, to get the troops to the battlefield faster, but not used to move such troops about on the battlefield after initial deployment. Sometimes troops remounted to pursue beaten enemy. In the first case, this is before the battle, in the second it is after the enemy is beaten, so there is no reason for such troops to be modelled in the rules, which only cover the actual battle up until the point that one side concedes the field.[/quote]

*Apologies Mr B-Scott for not noting that this seems eminently reasonable, except for the examples (previous post) where troops did dismount. But then that is not "mounted infantry" so point taken.

*So can those cavalry who are recorded as dismounting in combat situations dismount?

*Yours disgracefully

*Pelagius

PELAGIUS wrote:
*So can those cavalry who are recorded as dismounting in combat situations dismount?

Indeed they can - those that are allowed are noted in their army list.